When I challenged Garner on whether there were any YEC geologists he drew my attention to a Crationsit Geology Conferecne at Cedarville Coll Ohio where many YEC geologsits gave papers - about a dozen noe employed as geologists but some claiming to teach geology in YEC colleges

Just been interviewed by Premier Radio on the Flood alongside the SF expert Paul Garner (his works on S are F)

When is this interview to be broadcast Michael ? Is it Unbelievable on Saturday afternoons by any chance ?

When I challenged Garner on whether there were any YEC geologists he drew my attention to a Crationsit Geology Conferecne at Cedarville Coll Ohio where many YEC geologsits gave papers - about a dozen noe employed as geologists but some claiming to teach geology in YEC colleges

who, while not being a qualified geologist (he was a qualified physicist), was a YEC who went to work for the oil industry. What he observed in the field shocked him so much that he abandoned his YEC beliefs and very nearly became an atheist !

John Woodmorappe wrote:There is no doubt that Scripture teaches theuniversality of the Flood (Whitcomb and Morris 1961).

Is it just me or is a bit strange that he has to quote a secondary reference for that statment rather than the primary source material? Surely if your a bible-believing christian with literalist-bent you don't need Whitcomb and Morris to tell you the bible is true?

"http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/07/31/creation-geologists-meet-at-cedarville"
Couldn't resist a look, and really wish I hadn't bothered, someone has resurected radiohalos and there is really rubbish on ice cores.

Michael wrote:When I challenged Garner on whether there were any YEC geologists he drew my attention to a Crationsit Geology Conferecne at Cedarville Coll Ohio where many YEC geologsits gave papers - about a dozen noe employed as geologists but some claiming to teach geology in YEC colleges

The precise question is whether there are any practising YEC geologists and, as far as I am aware, there are none. Snelling gave up geology in the 1980s and was also subsequently fired by CMI/AiG. he did do some consulting work in the 1980s but lost all credibility when he told the professional orld that certain rocks were millions of years old and the rest of the world that all rocks were no more than 6,000 years old. Woodmoorape, as far as I am aware, has never practicised as a geologist. He is a former school teacher. Woodmoorape, who, again as far as I am aware, has never sailed a dingy, set himself as a world class expert on naval architecture, which speaks volumes about his judgement. McIntosh fancies himself as geologist but doesn't even have an O level in either geology or geography. Garner has, IIRC, a 1st degree in geology but has never used it.

It seems to me that geology is far more dangerous to YECers that biology because the case is so obvious and easy to handle. Especially in the UK it doesn't take far to travel to see the geological features that can't be explianed by YECers without monumental contortions and denials.

How do the YECers explain the contradiction between the observation that the older rocks are, the less frequent/common they appear to be and the obvious prediction from fllod geology that the newest strata, being nearest or on the surface, would be the least common as they would be the first to erode since 4,400 BC.

I was also wondering whether any of them have any knowledge whatsoever of micro-fossils (the paleontology I did in my yout didn't cover them much). My understanding is that with forams, there is a pretty continuous geological record over millions of years in many strata which can be interpreted to suggest that we do know most (and, in some cases, perhaps, all) of the intermediate species down to the point that we even know the rate of evolution of them. Correct me if I am wrong.

Or, is it that the YECrs avoid forams because the evidence is so overwhelming?

While Creationists regard this as a holy war worthy of their almost undivided attention, most scientists have given it short shrift, either by ignoring it or by laughing at such pretensions of "science." As a result, most scientists remain so unfamiliar with the claims, methods, and arguments of Creationists that they are unprepared for participation in any public confrontation.

For those without the time or access to such resources, this article is intended as a "crash-course" introduction to Creationist history, ideas, and methods as well as some factual tools to oppose Creationist claims and a few of the best cartoons to inject a bit of humor into any discussion

In reading such literature, a traditional geologist has difficulty keeping the time scale in order. Time and again, I found myself confusing pre- and post-flood events or mixing creation week events with flood events. One version (Froede, 1995) has a rudimentary scale with major eras being Creation Week, Antediluvian Ages, Flood Event, Ice Age, and Present. Another by Walker (1994) splits geologic time into eras and stages, based largely on numbers of days during creation week and the flood event. In order to minimize my confusion and get the overall Biblical chronological sequence in order, I found it necessary to go through conflicting ideas in many Creationist papers before being able to build my own version of their geologic column. Once this framework of Creationist geologic time was in place, many of their speculations could be added to other valid geologic observations which they generally ignore to produce

All I have to do is to take a look at the environment around me. In Ni many of the rocks are igneous, evidence of past volcanism. There are a number of extinct volcanoes (Slemish mountain for example):

Both the Astronomy courses that I did with the OU (I sucessfully passed one of them. Illness disrupted the second one unfortunately) covered the subject. For example, different temperatures, pressures, and gravity, means that magma can behave in an entirely different way especially with regard to cooling and how far it can travel etc. compared to the Earth. I also found out that the most common rock in the solar system was primitive basalt. Apparently this is very similar in composition to MORBS (mid - ocean ridge basalts)

There was also quite a lot on crater morphology, not only lunar but terrestrial as well (there was an interesting video on the Ries impact Crater in Germany which is around 14.7 million years old (is this pre-flood or post flood ?). Crater density can act as a chronometor, and it's possible to estimate the age of the lunar surface using this method. I think it compared very well with the radiometric dates obtained from rock samples brought back from the apollo missions. Gene Shoemaker's ground breaking work was also mentioned in the course.

Also fascinating was the subject of cryovolcanism. On the colder icy satelites, the ice is so cold that it behaves very nuch like rock. Tidal forces can result in the formation of icy volcanoes. An interesting prospect .

McIntosh's geology is atrocious. His scientific (sic) appendicesto his Geology for Today contains so many errors that they mustbe deliberate.

I'm not too prone to attributing to malice what may just be the
result of stupidity. But a great deal of creationist apologetics
leaves one with the unavoidable conclusion that the apologists
are lying, either about the science or about knowing anything
about it.